http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:52:16 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/07/155216.php Josh WolfeA weekend of major issues was upon us: social security's stimulating squabbles, Greenspan's giving guidance on growth and Iran's ignoring irate inspectors. But surely the media will be focused on something far more important: just what will Martha do when she gets out and what will Michael do when he goes in??As I wrote last September, we gush over gossip (whether of the local water-cooler or celebrity trade rag kinds)--it's got a special place in our hearts. Harvard's evolutionary psych guru, Steve Pinker, said it best: "Gossip is a favorite pastime in all human societies because knowledge is power. Knowing who needs a favor and who is in a position to offer one, who is trustworthy and who is a liar, who is available and who is under the protection of a jealous spouse--all give obvious strategic advantages in the games of life. That is especially true when the information is not yet widely known and one can be the first to exploit an opportunity, the social equivalent of insider trading." Forget Marx. Media is the opiate of the masses. In part, because we all want to keep up. We're afraid of what we'll miss if we tune out.UBS's Tech Strategist Pip Coburn shared an interesting point. Most people, especially the throngs on Wall Street, thirst for new things. And if a sector doesn't develop immediately, they're on to the next--never mind that the tipping point for the technology or market hasn't hit yet. In the market, there's evidence of more and more firm-specific volatility, but one has to wonder if it's because technology is changing at a faster and faster rate (it is) or because investors have shorter and shorter attention spans (they do)?Like Buffett said, "companies get the shareholders they deserve". Conversely, shareholders get the companies they deserve. Impatient, restless investors will leap like lemmings from fad to fad. In the long run, their thighs might be stronger, but their pockets will be emptier. As has been said, the only safe way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket.If you pay even remote attention to the media (and escapist attempts require a serious expenditure of energy), the latest rages are "podcasting" and personalized media. The former is really a subset of the latter. Someone asked me to start a nanotech podcast of this weekly letter. But my prediction on the fate of podcasting is this: hundreds of thousands of people will post audio files for the world to hear. Like a power law, a few voices ("podcasts")--that wouldn't have left their full-time jobs for radio or would've otherwise never been heard--will percolate to the top with very large audiences, benefit from positive feedback effects and early lock-in of listener loyalty and bite into the Satellite radio players. Simultaneously a few very rare casts, like "cooking hour for lactose intolerant dog-lovers" will find a loyal but very, very small niche audience.I'm wrestling with the controversial idea that perhaps all this personalization has a downside. Ten years ago, MIT's Nicholas Negroponte theorized a newspaper that pulled together all the things you're interested in and delivered it--"The Daily Me."It's here now and it's not just alerts via up-to-the-minute blogs or news-feeds. You've got Tivo for your shows, iPod for music you desire, Netflix for movies you want, and Sirius (or XM) for the radio you want. Empowering? Sure. But the downside seems to be isolation. All those music listeners walking about NYC with dangling white headphones are independent tribes of one, perhaps literally in an "I"-"Pod".People who follow nanotechnology closely recognize that the most dramatic changes will come at the boundaries (as all change does--whether in population ecologies, nation-states or on-campus quads). The biologist that bucks the border of his discipline is more likely to stumble upon a breakthrough than his colleague who remains caged. But it requires pressing up against the boundaries, not creating a bubble around one's self. Perhaps the irony is this: many of our new technologies with rapid adoption rates from network effects actually make it easier to opt-out and isolate in personalized cocoons.I for one like listening to the radio or watching live TV, knowing there's a network of people listening or watching to the same thing I am, having the same or opposite emotional response that I am, at the same time. Sometimes popular TV shows aren't necessarily popular because they are good. Sometimes they're popular because they're popular (Just as people can be famous for being famous).My last media quip for this week: the blockbuster movie business has morphed into a late 90s investment bank, churning out low quality offerings and relying on pre-marketing to pack them in and make their money. Contrast Oscar-nominated Sideways with blockbuster-bomb Elektra. Sideways opened on about 350 screens and took 10 weeks to gross about $25 million. Elektra opened on 10x as many screens and grossed $25 million in 1/10th of the time. The logic for the studios has become simple: spend big on advertising, then pack people in before they find out it sucks. Many investment banks used the same strategy.Here's my friendly reminder to disconnect next weekend. Take the weekend and if you have spare time, maybe use it to read. As my childhood friends twisted the old library slogan to make fun of me, "reading is fun-for-mentals". Or as Voltaire said, "You despise books; you whose lives are absorbed in the vanities of ambition, the pursuit of pleasure or indolence; but remember that all the known world, excepting only savage nations, is governed by books."(Josh Wolfe, NYC) And www.ForbesWolfe.com Culture26397@blogcritics.org Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:52:16 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/02/094205.php Josh WolfeAfter three years of panels, meetings, widespread media coverage, visits from Governor Pataki and Senator Clinton, industrial partnerships from IBM, Tokyo Electron, Intel and others and millions in construction and development of a state-of-the-art research facility for students and faculty...a professor professes that he now questions "the development of the School of Nanosciences and Nanoengineering at the university". The accompanying video suggest said professor is concerned that resources from other departments may be compromised and things just aren't "fully understood"...Another Professor, this one a physicist and a nano advocate says, "What I think has occurred is that there is a great deal of confusion on the part of a limited number of faculty. And I think it's unfortunate that they've taken the bully pulpit."Just as I showed last July, as much as nanoscience stands to bring together disparate disciplines, the humanities and those not receiving government funding from the National Nanotech Initiative will stage such divisive laments.This is nothing new. A vested interest dictates each of our agendas. Some will always be threatened by change and oppose or ignore potential benefits to avoid uprooting the warm routine comfort of the status quo. (read also as: "i want a piece of the pie, but i don't want to get up to get it. and if i can't have some, you can't either..." The letter below was ALLEGEDLY (although some have strongly suggested it is a HOAX) sent to President Andrew Jackson from New York State Governor Martin Van Buren on January 31, 1829. True or not, it captures a sentiment that represents a vested interest against a very important change at that time, not unlike our time today. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dear President Jackson: The canal system of this country is being threatened by the spread of a new form of transportation known as 'railroads.' The federal government must preserve the canals for the following reasons: One. If canal boats are supplanted by 'railroads,' serious unemployment will result. Captains, cooks, drivers, hostlers, repairmen and lock tenders will be left without means of livelihood, not to mention the numerous farmers now employed in growing hay for the horses. Two. Boat builders would suffer and towline, whip and harness makers would be left destitute. Three. Canal boats are absolutely essential to the defense of the United States. In the event of the expected trouble with England, the Erie Canal would be the only means by which we could ever move the supplies so vital to waging modern war. As you may well know, Mr. President, 'railroad' carriages are pulled at the enormous speed of fifteen miles per hour by 'engines' which, in addition to endangering life and limb of passengers, roar and snort their way through the countryside, setting fire to crops, scaring the livestock and frightening women and children. The Almighty certainly never intended that people should travel at such breakneck speed. Martin Van Buren Governor of New York ---------- Women and children! National defense! Invoking religious doctrine! Destruction of jobs!...Time marches on...(Josh Wolfe, NYC) Culture10601@blogcritics.org Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:42:05 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/13/082843.php Josh WolfeSorry we've been away! Some exciting things cooking behind the scenes here, but in the meantime I'm back and will be active again with posts of interest.News broke last night about a memory device from Hewlett-Packard and Princeton University researchers which would be so cheap that you'd use it just to store data, then toss it. HP's Stan Williams has talked to me a lot about memory so cheap its disposable, but I'm bearish on that concept of non-rewritable memory. Humans don't work like that. We make mistakes, we grow tired of old MP3 songs, we want new ones. In the John Seely Brown sense Information may want to be "free". But us human brutes like to imprison it, be able to change it around at will and then let it go.So unless a mechanism exists where these disposable plastic memories would be intelligently and automatically replaced, it has little applicability in the consumer device world. Think about it. When was the last time you transferred MP3 songs or digital pictures and never erased or re-wrote that data set. Non-rewritable memory requires more energy and effort that people behaviorally won't want to spend. Here's how the technology pictured right works:The device is a polymer that conducts low amounts of electricity, but if high amounts are applied it loses its ability to conduct forever. So the polymer is like a fuse. Too much voltage and it blows. If you take a perpindicular array like in the picture above wherever higher voltage is applied, the polymer "fuse" will blow, representing a 0. The circuits that still function are 1's. Applying lower current will let you "read" the 1's and won't travel over (or be able to read the 0's) giving you a 0.And please discount the claims that just because someone was able to achieve a high density of a single or maybe several working bits...like... The team predicts that one million bits of information could fit into a square millimeter of material the thickness of a sheet of paper. A block just a cubic centimeter in size could contain as many as 1,000 high-quality digital images, the scientists suggest, and producing it wouldn't require high-temperatures or vacuum chambers. ...that it will ever translate into a scalable and useful functioning device. The science is interesting and its foundational knowledge. Expect no device. More at www.forbeswolfe.com(Josh Wolfe, NYC) Culture10087@blogcritics.org Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:28:43 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/17/165607.php Josh WolfeOn occasion, I'll share an insight I've gained from a seemingly disparate field. In the long-run its implications will be evident. While here looking out from the ports of southern France, I'm concurrently reading Non-Zero, a highly recommended book on human history through the lens of game theory by Robert Wright.Wright recounts that an industrial revolution was just as likely to occur in China as it was in Europe. But China in an attempt to fend off barbarians erected the Great Wall. This took resources away from their trade effort and hampered the inward spread of innovations developed in Europe. The Ming Dynasty had unplugged themselves from the game. Wright writes: The irony of this isolationism is that during the early Ming period the Chinese were king of the sea. In 1405 the emperor dispatched a flet of 317 vessels--nearly twice the size of the Spanish Armada would reach--to explore trade routes along souther Eurasia...yet the Ming retreated from big-time sailing, eventually banning the construction of large ships.......China consciously shifted resources from one vast project--ocean voyages that had shown little profit--to another vast project: building the Great Wall to keep barbarians at bay....For centuries, China had been a big exporter of good ideas, and western Europe a big importer. Now, just as Europe's social brain was really humming, China opted out of the exchange....Over the next half-century European nations would embrace sailing big-time and find the New World. Some scholars believe this stroke of fortune explains why the industrial revolution happened where it did. Europe stumbled onto a trove of precious metals and vast farmlands and hacienda-ready farmers, all just waiting for exploitation... Last year around this time, China tried banning Google searching for its people. Effectively erecting an informational Wall of China. Under such restriction, the implications are profound for the spread of valuable information--such as progress in nanotechnology research. The time and cost to retrieve valuable news or information that may be competitvely relevant for Chinese researchers would've been saliently and negatively impacted. As would the corresponding prospects for technology commercialization and economic leadership.It's good to see they are learning from their past.(Josh Wolfe, Cannes, France) Culture8445@blogcritics.org Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:56:07 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/09/03/003328.php Josh WolfeEach month we publish our Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report. And on the back page of our monthly report we have a feature called the Nanosphere. It contains those companies engaged in nanotechnology that we believe represent high probability for long-term capital gain. The stocks we have selected for our Nanosphere portfolio since inception of the portfolio--nearly 16 months ago in March 2002--have climbed in total +220.39%. For comparison, during the same time the NASDAQ is up +6.4% while the S&P has declined -7.7%. (Josh Wolfe, NYC) Culture8046@blogcritics.org Wed, 3 Sep 2003 00:33:28 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/20/111235.php Josh WolfeI'm back. Thanks to the brilliant and energetic Steve Waite for contributing last week. Read his book.I leave the country for a few days and madness ensues: (I'll hold off on the blackouts for just a sec) but most interesting was the Oracle of Omaha (Warren Buffet, not Larry Ellison) threw his weight behind Conan the Barbarian as economic advisor. (I'm waiting for Gary Coleman to appoint Matthew Lesko, the-question-mark-guy to his own council). Buffet is considered the greatest value investor of all time and his social currency is worth a lot. And that credibility and legitimacy also starts a positive feedback cycle that has already attracted others like Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report reader and nanotech supporter Gov. George Pataki. Pataki's support move is like a callable option. He buys into Arnold now, and can strike in-the-money and cash in with tacitly understood reciprocity. If it's a position in the Bush administration Pataki wants, helping a republican like Schwarzenegger clinch California before the 2004 election will win lots of brownie points with Bush. And if not, and he has other plans: celebs are phenomenal fundraisers.But Pataki also has his hands full with major hometown issues like Blackout 2003. We broke the pending energy crisis and nanotech's major role two months ago in our June 2003 Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report issue. "...Energy is to an industrial society what oxygen is to the body. Even a few minutes without it and the whole complex organism collapses." Lots of folks in in the northeast experienced a small taste of that last Thursday evening. You can read that article about the supply problem and the nanotech answers including Nobel laureate Rick Smalley's nanotube quantum wire depcited above HERE. Culture7714@blogcritics.org Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:12:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/11/214908.php Josh WolfeClues embedded within:Breaking news here from my blog in the form of a blind item...I mentioned last week that GE and NEC were already running ads on TV and in magazines using nanotechnology as a hook. My insider sources tell me a certain CEO who's name rhymes with the vehicle of choice for 70s easy riders authorized a TV advertisement all about nanotechnology that will run starting next week...It will better educate the masses about nanotechnology and help curb the fear-mongering scientifically illterate activists are spewing forth.It might be safe to speculate...that the same company might just also be collaborating on nanotech with another very...cool...company, if you know watt i'm talking about...(Josh Wolfe, NYC) Culture7519@blogcritics.org Mon, 11 Aug 2003 21:49:08 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/05/143033.php Josh WolfeI just got inside word that Sun Microsystem's Bill Joy, everyone's favorite prognosticator of peril is going to be publishing a book on the dangers of the future. Discussion of his Wired magazine piece, "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us" received more words in print later on than the story itself. And now Joy will profit tremendously from this fear-mongering.Author and finanical fable-teller Michael Lewis has got this process down: Step 1: Write an excerpt of a book-to-be. Float it in NYT Magazine. Step 2: Wait for feedback. Step 3: Tweak the contents. Get hefty advance. Publish.Controversy sells. And it sells best at a time like now when there is a current zeitgeist of heightened paranoia, fear, uncertainty and doubt about...well, everything. Martin Rees scared the wits out of some with 50/50 odds of us surviving in his recent overly-long and colon-titled book "Our Final Hour: A Scientist's Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind's Future In This Century--On Earth and Beyond"It's been a few years since a flood of Nostradamus millenium-bug bit folks. But when Joy's book drops it'll be a best seller...assuming the market for these fear-mongering scenarios isn't already saturated. And more so, if not for certain widespread media coverage, then for basic behavioral psychology principles: People would much rather take risk to avert loss then to capture gain. And inspiring fear of uncertainty--of what nightmares may come and how to protect yourself from them--is a great purchase motivator to avoid such loss. After all--in the most reductionist sense--it is the yin-yang duality of greed and fear that govern markets and human behavior. Today, fear has the scales tipped in its favor.(Josh Wolfe, NYC) Culture7411@blogcritics.org Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:30:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/08/04/092144.php Josh WolfeThis morning's Reuters story borrows from our May 2002 Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report piece (over a year old) that was the first to break this story:Read the full original story here.We received our first hate mail/death threat after writing this controversial piece. Apparently some overzealous shareholders of these stocks were not pleased with our take.Be sure to see also my recent blog entry on tracking and charting the nano-hype.(Josh Wolfe, NYC) Culture7392@blogcritics.org Mon, 4 Aug 2003 09:21:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/07/29/140317.php Josh WolfeIn my last post, I referenced venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins' general partner Vinod Khosla being concerned about a bubble ever forming in nanotechnology. In our monthly Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report we've written several articles--last year, "Beware of Nano-Pretenders"--and most recently "Beware the Nanobubble". In both we call out the public companies that may be directly taking advantage of, or indirectly benefiting from growing public enchantment with nanotechnology. We don't want our subscribers to be left holding the bag when larger and savvier institutional investors decide to let the air out.Here's a cartoon (I'm not sure of its original source) depicting the extraordinary popular delusions and madness of crowds.For a confluence of reasons that we've described in our monthly report, we won't see this happen. But a great depiction of the madness of crowds in the ever-shifting quest for the next new thing of asset allocation.(Josh Wolfe, NYC) Culture7306@blogcritics.org Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:03:17 EDT